IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i21p8791-d433324.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Market Price Premium for Buildings Seismic Retrofitting

Author

Listed:
  • Chiara D’Alpaos

    (Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy)

  • Paolo Bragolusi

    (Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy)

Abstract

The Italian territory is largely prone to seismic risk and 6 million buildings require seismic retrofitting. In the last three main seismic events (Abruzzo 2009, Emilia Romagna in 2012 and in Lazio in 2016) 633 people died and considerable financial losses such as the structural collapse of buildings and interruption of production activities were incurred. During the period 1944–2017, economic losses caused by seismic events amounted to EUR 212 billion. More than 80% of the entire building stock does not respect seismic design standards provided by Italian regulations (NTC 2018). Seismic retrofitting of buildings may avoid many deaths and financial losses, as well as increase people’s safety. In addition, seismic retrofitting of buildings may also generate an increase in real estate asset value (namely a market price premium), which may accelerate investments. Despite the relevance of this issue, there is a lack of literature, which investigates the key factors in boosting investments and the market price premium for retrofitted buildings in detail. The aim of this paper is to fill this gap with respect to the Italian Real Estate market. To estimate the capitalization effect of benefits produced by seismic retrofitting on property market values, it is fundamental to know how much people are willing to pay for it. As, to our knowledge, there are no available datasets which provide house characteristics, including seismic performances and market prices of Italian real estate assets, we implemented a contingent valuation approach to determine the market price premium for retrofitted assets. In detail, information about the willingness to pay (WTP) an additional price for a seismically retrofitted home (by considering different risk exposure), ceteris paribus was elicited using open-ended questions in a self-administered web interview. In particular, we applied the methodology to a case study, i.e., a contingent scenario related to masonry-detached houses located in a seismic hazard zone. Our results revealed that individuals are willing to pay an additional price for retrofitted assets and the average market price premium ranges from 10% to 52% of the property market price.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiara D’Alpaos & Paolo Bragolusi, 2020. "The Market Price Premium for Buildings Seismic Retrofitting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:8791-:d:433324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/8791/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/8791/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francesco Porcelli & Riccardo Trezzi, 2019. "The impact of earthquakes on economic activity: evidence from Italy," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1167-1206, April.
    2. Thanos, Sotirios & Dubé, Jean & Legros, Diègo, 2016. "Putting time into space: the temporal coherence of spatial applications in the housing market," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 78-88.
    3. Federico Dell’Anna & Marina Bravi & Carlos Marmolejo-Duarte & Marta Carla Bottero & Ai Chen, 2019. "EPC Green Premium in Two Different European Climate Zones: A Comparative Study between Barcelona and Turin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-21, October.
    4. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    5. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    7. Maria Rosa Valluzzi & Sergio Calò & Gianluca Giacometti, 2020. "Correlation of Vulnerability and Damage between Artistic Assets and Structural Elements: The DataBAES Archive for the Conservation Planning of CH Masonry Buildings in Seismic Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, January.
    8. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
    9. Thanos, Sotirios & Dubé, Jean & Legros, Diègo, 2016. "Putting time into space: the temporal coherence of spatial applications in the housing market," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 78-88.
    10. James C. Murdoch & Harinder Singh & Mark Thayer, 1993. "The Impact of Natural Hazards on Housing Values: The Loma Prieta Earthquake," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 167-184, June.
    11. Elizabeth Hoffman & Dale J. Menkhaus & Dipankar Chakravarti & Ray A. Field & Glen D. Whipple, 1993. "Using Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research: A Case Study of New Packaging for Fresh Beef," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 318-338.
    12. Tiziano Dalla Mora & Maria Pinamonti & Lorenzo Teso & Giosuè Boscato & Fabio Peron & Piercarlo Romagnoni, 2018. "Renovation of a School Building: Energy Retrofit and Seismic Upgrade in a School Building in Motta Di Livenza," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-24, March.
    13. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    14. Keefer, Philip & Neumayer, Eric & Plümper, Thomas, 2011. "Earthquake Propensity and the Politics of Mortality Prevention," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 1530-1541, September.
    15. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    16. Brookshire, David S & Thayer. Mark A & Tschirhart, John & Schulze, William D, 1985. "A Test of the Expected Utility Model: Evidence from Earthquake Risks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(2), pages 369-389, April.
    17. Rakesh Kumar Sarin, 1983. "A Social Decision Analysis of the Earthquake Safety Problem: The Case of Existing Los Angeles Buildings," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 35-50, March.
    18. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    19. Anna Alberini & Paolo Rosato & Margherita Turvani (ed.), 2006. "Valuing Complex Natural Resource Systems," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4193.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    2. Graça, Manjate, 2018. "Scope effects in contingent valuation: an application to the valuation of irrigation water quality improvements in Infulene Valley, Mozambique," Research Theses 334752, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    3. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Paolo Bragolusi & Chiara D’Alpaos, 2021. "The Willingness to Pay for Residential PV Plants in Italy: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-13, September.
    5. José L Oviedo & Pablo Campos & Alejandro Caparrós, 2022. "Contingent valuation of landowner demand for forest amenities: application in Andalusia, Spain," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(3), pages 615-643.
    6. Dahal, Ram P. & Grala, Robert K. & Gordon, Jason S. & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Munn, Ian A., 2018. "Estimating the willingness to pay to preserve waterfront open spaces using contingent valuation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 614-626.
    7. T. S. Raghu & Rajiv Sinha & Ajay Vinze & Orneita Burton, 2009. "Willingness to Pay in an Open Source Software Environment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 218-236, June.
    8. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Carlsson, Fredrik & Matthews, David I, 2015. "Testing preference formation in learning design contingent valuation (LDCV) using advanced information and repetitivetreatments," Working Papers in Economics 619, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    9. McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A., 2011. "A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 554-571, September.
    10. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2018. "Willingness to pay for the preservation of geothermal areas in Iceland – The contingent valuation studies of Eldvörp and Hverahlíð," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(PA), pages 97-108.
    11. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, July.
    12. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    13. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth Willis & Guy Garrod, 2001. "Estimating Benefits for Effective Enforcement of Speed Reduction from Dichotomous-Choice CV," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(4), pages 281-304, December.
    14. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Longo, Alberto, 2012. "Environmental pricing of externalities from different sources of electricity generation in Chile," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1214-1225.
    15. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Aiew, Wipon & Woodward, Richard T., 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Irradiated Food: A Non Hypothetical Market Experiment," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24995, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    17. Abay Asfaw & Joachim Braun, 2005. "Innovations in Health Care Financing: New Evidence on the Prospect of Community Health Insurance Schemes in the Rural Areas of Ethiopia," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 241-253, September.
    18. McNair, Ben J. & Hensher, David A. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a latent class approach," MPRA Paper 23427, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:8791-:d:433324. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.